Massachusetts church's 'pro-terrorism' speakers protested

Truly twisted monkeys.
Do they not realize that eventually if THE jihad and the resultant dhimmification succeeds-proceeds that all other religions and non denominationals across the entire planet will eventually become ILLEGAL ENTITIES
THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST.

ALL non-Muslims on this earth are illegal entities that should not exist,except as a Dhimmi slave class subservient to ISLAM and Sharia Law.

Perverse indeed. this is the stuff of nightmares.

One wonders if Nancy Murray, a long-time tiller in the anti-Israel soil, and mother of Rebecca Murray, who stood at the Muqata to "protect" Arafat, will be there. Nancy Murray, of course, is in charge, at the Massachusetts ACLU, of attempting to eviscerate the Patriot Act. She prefers, apparently, the freedoms so widely available all over the Middle East.

"Islamochristians" may be defined as those ostensible Christians who, in fact, out of ignorance or malevolence, or great dislike of their own societies, have seen Islam as the vehicle of protest. Of course, old-fashioned antisemitism is a powerful force, and that, too, cannot ever be denied its role in the hysterical treatment of Israel, and in the reworking of history which denies the unassailable -- if it is properly understood -- legal, moral, and historic claims of Israel, to that land which is approximately 0.2% of that now possessed by the Arab Muslims, who have essentially spent the last 1350 years diminishing the Christian and Jewish and Zoroastrian presence, by murder, by forced exile, by the slow asphyxiation of those permitted to live, as "dhimmis."

The supporters of this "Ein Reich, Ein Volk" -- the Reich being the dar al-Islam, and the supreme "Volk" being the Arabs, who within the phony universalism of Islam take pride of place (for the Qur'an was delivered in Arabic, and to an Arab, and the Sunnah reflects the customs and ways of 7th century Arabs, which is why Muslims everywhere try to adopt Arab names, or claim where they can an Arab lineage)-- will be out in Ernst-Roehm force in Somerwille. And, of course, wrapping their fascist and racist impulses in supposed pious concern for the "oppression" of the recently -invented "Palestinian people."

Hitler's speeches, in which he drops tear after outraged tear for the "legitimiate rights" of the "Sudeteners" (and, by the way, never failing to mention the "Arabs of Palestine" as well) should be read -- they offer a guide, a glimpse, into the Somerville gathering, and all similar gatherings.

A farce -- but a sinister farce.

The Presbyterian Church, where we turn sheep into goats.

I had know idea the Presbyterian Church was so anti-Semitic, which is always born out of a poor understanding of Scripture.

Maybe the Presbyterian Bible is missing a few Scriptures?

I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)

But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations(Gentiles): and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren(Israel), even these least, ye did it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life. (Matthew 25:31-46)

Jesus clearly says in the above passages that gentiles that help Israel are sheep and gentiles that do not help Israel are goats.

cut & paste From the Presbyterian Church USA
http://www.pcusa.org/israelandjewishrelations/christianzionism.htm
Christian Zionism
Christian Zionism is a predominantly American movement that believes that the modern state of Israel is the catalyst for end of times, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and the return of Jesus with final judgment. This dispensationalist view of the Bible looks forward to the second-coming, an event only possible when the state of Israel reclaims its ancient borders with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital. Christian Zionists thus provide unqualified support for any action toward this end, neglecting the cries for justice from Palestinians and others who would pay the price for this unilateral move. Christian Zionism, however, does not refer in a generic way to "Christians who support the state of Israel."
What did the General Assembly do?
A regional Presbyterian body asked the General Assembly to declare that Christian Zionism is inconsistent with the basic values of Reformed theology.
Christian Zionism, as explained in the presbytery's request, "weds religion with politics and interprets Biblical faithfulness in terms of Israel's future." This view holds that God's blessing of Abraham in Genesis 12:3 is to be applied directly to the modern state of Israel.
Christian Zionists believe that the promises of land given to Abraham are irrevocable and that the contemporary state of Israel maintains a divine right to this land. They also believe that the state of Israel will be the catalyst for the "end times," and that the fates of nations will hinge on their support of Israel. Many Christian Zionists use this reading of scripture to interpret current events and to shape political goals. Most biblical scholars give little or no credence to this interpretation of scripture. Moreover, this school of interpretation (propounded in the "Left Behind" literature) inevitably consigns the Jewish people either to mass conversion to Christianity or to mass damnation to the fire of hell at Armageddon.

First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people!

http://www.katinaproductions.com/rehov/previewhl.html

Since when has it become Anti-Semitic to stop supporting Israel? The Israeli government has killed more innocent civilians that all these terrorist groups combined. If your land was under a foreign occupation, u are unarmed, getting bombed daily, and forced to live as second class to the occupier, and have the occupiers giving your land to settlers, wouldnt u take up arms against the occupying country? It a riduculous assertion to blame Islam for the violence in occupied lands, did the IRA or Tamil Tigers sit down and become dhimmi to their occupiers? How about the Americans from the British? Israel is supporting state-sponcered terrorism and there no doubt about it. And brainwashed people like u cant seem to understand that. I applaud the Presbyterian church for divesting in a nation that is terrorizing an occupied people.

crusadewatcher
I was under the impression that Islam forbid the use of mind altering drugs?

Those people in the "occupied lands" need to go home to Jordan and Egypt. There is no "palestine" -your own book says that Israel is for the Jews.

I applaud the Presbyterian church for divesting in a nation that is terrorizing an occupied people

I applaud the Tsunami and Mother nature for accomplishing what castrated dhimmi nations have failed to do to their trecherous, conspiring, amalekite populations ...

http://moynihaninstitute.org/peace.html

The word "occupied" needs to be carefully examined. It is ordinarily used when the country deemed to be the occupier has no claim to the land it occupies, and is only there temporarily, following a conflict, with no intention or right to remain.

Thus "Occupied Paris" or "Occupied France." Thus "Occupied Germany" or "Occupied Japan" after the war. But to use the word "occupied lands" for lands which are part of the Mandate for Palestine -- that is, part of the two Ottoman vilayets that were deliberately set aside by the League of Nations, after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, on the perfectly reasonable and indeed irreproachable theory that like the Arabs (who were promised one Arab State), the Kurds (who never got any state), and the Armenians (ditto, except for a Soviet republic, only recently made independent). The moral, legal, and historic claim of the Jews -- a people some of whom had left the Middle East after the Jihad-conquest by the Arabs in the 7th century, and some of whom had remained to live as dhimmis in Iraq, Syria, Judea itself, Yemen, and North Africa -- would be seen by fair-minded person who had bothered to investigate the matter, as an overwhelming claim.

Indeed, when the British, who had made solemn commitments under their power as mandatory authority, simply closed off all of Eastern Palestine (which went to form present-day Jordan)in 1921, the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations was horrified. Arab propoagandists --Rami Khouri, Rashid Khalidi, Saeb Erekat, and so on -- like to refer rather quickly, and self-assuredly, knowing that their interviewer or interlocutor will never stop to question them, about the history of the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian people," about the real understandings and equities that lay behind the Palestine Mandate, and about the precise demographic figures, and land ownership, in what the Western world, but never the Islamic one until the last century, always referred to as "Palestine" or the Holy Land.

How many people discussing "Palestine" realize that in the Ottoman Empire, almost all the land was owned by the government, and that at least 90% of the land in the vilayets into which this mythical (because Christian and Jewish) "Palestine" was divided was owned by the Ottoman state. How many know that until the 1948 war, what land the Jews could buy,from Arab landlords, was bought at exorbitant prices? How many know that the State of Israel, as the legitimate and intended successor of the Mandatory authority, Great Britain, which in its turn had taken over the land owned by the Ottoman state? How many know that the entire settled population (i.e., exclusive of the Bedouin who wandered from Egypt to the Arabian desert) of the land that then went to form the "Palestine Mandate" could not, in 1850, have been more than 100,000 in all? How many have bothered to read the accounts of travellers, from Volney to Chateaubriand, to Melville and Mark Twain, who all described the fantastic desolation and ruination, in the 19th century until the revival of economic opportunitites as the Jews began to come back, in the Holy Land?

And, of course, there is always the little matter of that absurd phrase, and more absurd concept, the "Palestinian people" -- a phrase which, if you care to look for it, you will find emp[loyed NOT ONCE prior to the 1967 war by any Arab spokesman or leader anywhere, not in the world's press, not to each other, not in any speech or piece of paper offered up, among the hundreds of thousands of speeches and pieces of paper, including all those at the United Nations.

Look through the entire U.N. records and try, in 1948, or 1953, or 1956, or 1959, or 1966, to find a single mention of the "Palestinian people."

And you won't.

Here's an example of how to use the word "occupied" properly. But first, banish all use of that idiotic phrase "West Bank" and instead use, unembarrasedly, and repeatedly, until it becomes second nature, and until you have forced others to use the terms as well -- it is all by dint of repetition that one succeeds in having right, or wrong, language emoloyed -- "Judea and Samaria."

And why should you use those terms, that make you just a little bit shy, just a little bit embarrassed, as if to use them is to identify yourself as some Bible-belt or Jewish "settler" fanatic? You have yourself become a victim of incessant Arab propaganda, and have internalized what they have tried to make the world believe about the venerable Biblical placenames "Judea" and "Samaria." [They never got around to doing the same, amusingly, with the word "Gaza" which is just as Biblical, just as identified with the Jewish history retold in the Old Testament, which is primarily a chronicle, a history].

But "Judea" and "Samaria" were used by the Jews for more than a thousand years before Jesus began to use those words, and so did all Christians for another nearly 2000 years, until the Arab Muslims came along, in 1948, and began to make everyone forget those terms, be embarrassed by those placenames, and instead adopt, for two of the most important, though tiny places, in world history, the absurd phrase "the West Bank" -- a phrase which, of course, has meaning mainly for the Jordanians, and is not even geographically accurate, describing as it does a kind of ear-shaped area, and not a "bank" of land, of similar width along its entire length, parallel to the river in question -- the Jordan -- at all.

If the Arabs ever get their wish, following upon the next little "Palestinian" equivalent of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, and go in for the kill, and seize Jerusalem, and then begin calling it Al-Quds (just as the Umayyads seized Christian monuments and claimed them for Islam, not least in Jerusalem), how long would it be before the remaining Christians and Jews in the world would be dutifully calling it "Al-Quds" and looking a bit embarrased about using that old word "Jerusalem"?

In any case, if you are reading, and still with me, and prepared to use the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" as you should, you are then ready to pronounce the sentence below, which uses the word "occupied" with historical accuracy, and with due attention to the legal rights, under the Mandate, of the various parties. In other words, it does NOT as the BBC and much of the European press does, when they repeatedly inform us -- quite inaccurately, I'm afraid, that the "Palestinian people" are "struggling" to "get back" their "occupied lands."

That sentence is as follows:

"In Judea and Samaria, Jewish lands now occupied in large part by Arabs, the Israelis should work to give those local Arabs a degree of autonomy that would be superior to that which the Arabs give to all the non-Arab minorities -- Sudanese blacks, Berbers, Kurds, and so on -- living under their rule, but should be discouraged from yielding up control of any of the territories they now possess, for in order to prevent war in the future, the Muslim Arab forces will be inhibited only where the doctine of "darura," or necessity, can be invoked."

A long sentence but worth the wait, or perhaps one should say it is worth its weight.

They seem to think that all that has to be done is get rid of Israel and the world will become a haven of peace and bliss and beauty, especially the Middle East. LOL! So Islam isn't the only belief system capable of brainwashing its adherents and making them believe in idiocy. The Presbyterians seem to have the same ability.

How handy for people to have Israel to use as an excuse for what's basically a grubby hatred they have for Jewish people.

"banish all use of that idiotic phrase "West Bank" and instead use, unembarrasedly, and repeatedly, until it becomes second nature, and until you have forced others to use the terms as well -- it is all by dint of repetition that one succeeds in having right, or wrong, language employed -- "Judea and Samaria."

This is why you're the man Hugh, this is why we love you....

Very succinct analysis, Hugh, which has the wonderful consequence of putting the lie to the Leftwing canard that anyone supportive of Israel in any way is somehow a Rightwing Zionist avidly reading the novels of Tim LaHaye. (In my own opinion, it only makes sense that a country friendly to the U.S. should be extended friendship as a quid pro quo. In addition, Israel does not reflect a dualistic nihilist-murderous political philosophy [or theology for that matter] that is anathema to Americans and our interests.)

The story about the Presbyterians brings to mind another story I read recently:

The Diocese of Scranton might soon have its first married Roman Catholic priest
http://www.scrantontimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13675101&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

What is most interesting in the story is that the former Episcopal clergyman in question joined the Catholic Church due to disagreements over the what essentially amounts to leftward political shifts in the Episcopalian Church.

Now we see the Presbyterians taking up a Leftwing political cause as if they were some student anarchists looking to get arrested at some deranged rally. Are these not signs that politics comes to the churches -- and is quite welcomed at that? Are not the Mainline Protestants sanctioning the erosion of the church-state divide through their politically correct advocacies? Does not, for instance, the Clarendon Hill Presbyterian Church make life uncomfortable for any member of the Presbytery that is in disagreement with this embracing of a radical cause? Can anyone show me the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church that is invoked as supportive of this politically charged endeavor?

I say, they are making their bed. Now they must sleep in it.